Team orders ready to haunt Mercedes

Last year's Malaysian Grand Prix was all about team orders. The Red Bull 'multi 21' controversy was one of the biggest stories of the year after Sebastian Vettel ran roughshod over instructions to hold station behind team-mate Mark Webber.

Had Vettel not blasted into the lead at the start of lap 46, the news cycle would still have been dominated by team orders. Instead, the attention would have been upon Mercedes, which ordered the faster Nico Rosberg to hold station behind Lewis Hamilton in the closing stages rather than taking third place.

After some emphatic words over the radio from team principal Ross Brawn, Rosberg accepted his lot and spent the last 18 laps of the race sat under Hamilton's rear wing, crossing the line half-a-second behind. But at no point did he attempt to pass, shrewdly heeding the team order while simultaneously proving to the watching world that he could have taken the position had he chosen to do so.

It was a rational decision from Mercedes. Its cars were safe in third and fourth with fifth-placed Felipe Massa no threat and Hamilton had been given licence to go all out to attack Red Bull earlier in the race. This meant he was having to be cautious in the second half of the race, helping Rosberg to be quicker.

Add to that serious concerns about rear tyre degradation, Mercedes's weakness during the first half of the season in 2013, and it's an understandable move. The only counter-argument is that by sending the quicker Rosberg up the road, it might put more pressure on the Red Bulls up ahead and could make something happen.

Team orders are the nitroglycerin of F1: unstable, explosive, but incredibly powerful. They are seen as distasteful and tantamount to race fixing as much of the watching world buys into the view of drivers as gladiators and the cars little more than a means to an end of individual success.

Teams, understandably, see things differently. Historically, team orders have always been a fact of life in grand prix racing. There was a time when the hierarchies in teams were very well-established, with the support acts very often accepting their lots and backing up their team leaders.

Things didn't always work out as they should have done and intra-team harmony did not hold. Sometimes, hammers were thrown and controversy has flared up periodically over the years.

Multi 21 overshadowed last year's race at Sepang © LAT

Occasionally, team orders have been cack-handedly invoked to the detriment of all involved as a result of needless conservatism, such as when Ferrari ordered Rubens Barrichello to let Michael Schumacher past at the end of the 2002 Austrian GP.

Other times, it was as a result of the idiotic ban on teams orders, introduced as a PR sop after Austria, such as when Ferrari ordered Felipe Massa to let Fernando Alonso past at Hockenheim in 2010.

The team orders ban forced everyone to deny it had happened, which made F1, Ferrari and its drivers all look foolish. Incidentally, while a tough decision to take given it robbed Massa of a victory a year to the day since his near-fatal crash at the Hungaroring, Alonso did come within a few points of winning the title so the extra seven points he pocketed that day were worth having.

Rightly, that ban was dropped as unworkable. But the lessons of the past are clear. Team orders are a necessary tool, but a dangerous one and must be use with extreme delicacy and as dispassionately as possible.

Mercedes clearly learned from its mistake in Malaysia last year, where team orders were not discussed pre-race. This year, with Mercedes starting the season with a clear advantage, the elephant of the room that is team orders has not been talked around.

Mercedes motorsport boss Toto Wolff insisted that "they are completely free to race", but when I asked for his definition of what exactly that constituted it was clear that beneath the soundbite there is a far more complicated texture of considerations. Make no mistake, Mercedes has done its homework and put a huge amount of thought into this.

"It's very difficult to establish parameters," said Wolff. "We've heard in the past whoever has the first corner stays in front, but we are not doing this.

"We had a long discussion with Paddy and the boys and it was a very good discussion, everybody gave his opinion on how we should proceed. We defined that, even if this is difficult to comprehend, our main competitors are the other teams and we need to make sure that as a team we are running strongly.

"Then it is to be decided on a case-by-case [basis]. It could go one race in one direction and the other race in the other direction.

"But I think we have discussed all possible situations and found a solution that is acceptable to Nico, to Lewis and the team."

Sensible words from Wolff that reveal the fundamental problem of team orders. Just as there will be racing situations that arise where a team boss would be abrogating their responsibility were such orders were not implemented, it isn't possible to create a perfect formula to decide how to do it. Wolff is intensely aware of the dangers posed by proverbial best laid plans...

Races are chaotic, the product of countless variables that mean every eventuality cannot be allowed for. This means that very often it will come down to an on-the-spot judgement call. Even the most thoroughly prepared case study handbook can't cover you for all situations.

Rosberg respected team orders in Malaysia last year © LAT

Let's say the Malaysian GP pans out as Australia did, only without Hamilton's engine problem. Assume that in the second half of the race, the two Mercedes are half-a-minute up the road and running in close proximity.

What happens if the driver in second place saved fuel in the first part of the race and is quicker as a result? What happens if the second-placed driver has sat in the leader's slipstream all race and has a few more litres available?

What happens if one or both cars have a potential problem that probably won't manifest itself but might, meaning backing off is the smart move? What happens if one driver has ended up on the quicker tyre at the end of the race (as happened in Malaysia with Vettel)?

What happens if one driver feels they should reap the rewards of driving a cannier race but is told to hold back? What happens if the driver ahead makes a mistake and a 50/50 move is on that the chaser would take if racing against any other car? What happens if the team has a one-two in its pocket and wants to preserve engine life and take it easy to the finish?

You can reel off potential scenarios until the end of time. After all, most of them have cropped up at one time or another in racing history. But there is no easy answer and simply sitting back and saying let it play out is not always an option.

It's not a simple situation, and as Wolff and everyone in senior management at Mercedes has been shrewd enough to recognise, team orders are F1's necessary evil and must be approached with caution. But history also shows that team orders can also win a championship that would otherwise be lost, which makes them too potent to ignore.

As for the drivers caught up in it, both Rosberg and Hamilton are shrewd enough and experienced enough to recognise the need to play the game sometimes. But in the pressure cooker environment of a title fight between team-mates, even drivers with the best of intentions can be put in situations that they deem intolerable.

As Rosberg put it of what has so far been a constructive rivalry with Hamilton, "we are so competitive, massively competitive. The faster our car gets the more difficult it will become."

So far, everyone at Mercedes has made the right noises. But it won't be until the race situation plays and the spectre of team orders rises to take centre stage that Wolff, Lowe, Hamilton, Rosberg and everyone at Mercedes will be truly put to the test.

Because sometimes, saying let them race simply isn't good enough.